unicorn

Arthur Nory Oyakawa Mariano, Brazilian Olympic openly gay gymnast (and fitness model).

It looks as though you didn't look very carefully at all. I have to support @Moses on this one. I went through that airport just last year. Even a nod to the French colonials... 😉

Well, the Philippines is one country I've never visited. Someone considering moving there might consider contacting one of the organizations mentioned in this webpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_culture_in_the_Philippines I'm not recommending the Philippines out of personal experience (although I do have a number of straight acquaintances from there, and know that one of my fellow physicians was happy retiring there). It just seems from the OP, the Philippines are much more welcoming to foreign retirement than Thailand. I'd be especially turned off by the Thai policy of double-taxing the money I'd be spending there already.

My thoughts would involve wondering why, with the information given in the original post, one would want to retire in Thailand rather than in the Philippines or somewhere else entirely. In Thailand, it sounds as though one gets double-taxed, probably can't get real permanent residency status or citizenship, can't own property, and I'd have to learn an entirely new writing script, adapt to driving on the left, and so on. Probably things are no more expensive in the Philippines than in Thailand. My sense, especially from reading this forum, is that one can even express oneself more openly in the Philippines (I keep seeing references to "He who cannot be named," and to lèse-majesté laws when it comes to Thailand). I'm completely baffled as to why anyone would choose Thailand over the Philippines to retire, except perhaps someone coming from a country in which one drives on the left side who doesn't want to adapt to a different driving style. I'd be curious to hear any rationale as to why someone would pick Thailand over the Philippines or somewhere else less hostile to foreigners spending money there.

Wow. Thailand's laws sound hostile to those who seek permanent residency there. There are many countries which are far more welcoming. Certainly, the Philippines seems to be one, but there are many more in other regions, including Belize and Portugal, where my sister has obtained permanent residency and soon citizenship. Portugal also has good infrastructure and healthcare. You'd think a country would be happy to have foreigners spend their hard-earned pensions there, rather than be assholes about it. Where does this hostility come from? Xenophobia?

Looks as though he's on tomorrow's menu at Harvard: 😄 https://www.foodpro.huds.harvard.edu/foodpro/item.asp?recipe=211003&portion=1/2&date=8-22-2024&type=27 Sebastian's Cafe Thursday, August 22, 2024 Wheat Syrian Bread 8z Ingredients: Wheat Pita Bread (Stone Ground Whole Wheat Flour, Water, Yeast, Salt, Malt, Molasses, Sodium Propionate.) Ingredients: Wheat Pita Bread (Stone Ground Whole Wheat Flour, Water, Yeast, Salt, Malt, Molasses, Sodium Propionate.)

Your statement that you avoid mixing with crowds supports my theory that more frequent exposure would be likely to result in milder (or no) symptoms when you get infected. Of course, I'm not your physician, and I don't know your health history nor what medications you take, whether or not you smoke, and so on, so I can't offer you specific medical advice. However, if other reasons that your course of infection was far more serious than most have been ruled out, it might be a good idea to consider a new strategy. Certainly, you'll be teeming with antibodies for the next 2-3 months, so this might be a good time to go out to the theater, parties, etc. Your GP was correct in stating antibiotics don't work for Covid-19, nor (in almost all cases) for bronchitis (which is a syndrome, not a symptom). However, if you indeed tested positive for Covid-19, and presented within the first few of days of getting symptoms (or testing positive), it's not true that there's NO effective treatment. If given early, Paxlovid is highly effective at diminishing symptoms and complications of Covid-19, although it must be started for sure within 5 days of symptom onset (preferably 3 or 4 days): https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/why-more-people-should-be-prescribed-paxlovid-for-covid "One of the best tools for preventing severe complications from COVID infection is the prescription antiviral drug Paxlovid. But not nearly as many people who could benefit from it are being prescribed it, says Amesh Adalja, MD, FIDSA, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security who specializes in infectious diseases and pandemic preparedness. Adalja says that both patients and providers need to be better informed about the benefits of Paxlovid and other antivirals like it. Paxlovid is extremely effective when taken within five days of symptom onset. In clinical trials, it reduced the risk of hospitalization and death by almost 90% in unvaccinated people. “It’s a tremendous tool that's completely underutilized,” says Adalja...". If you met the criteria for taking Paxlovid (i.e. you're old and not taking medications which interact with it), then your GP was indeed remiss in not prescribing it for you. (I did prescribe it for my elderly neighbors, after they assured me they weren't on any medications with which it interacts). As for where you contracted it, 7 days is somewhat longer than the usual incubation period for the current strain. Also, the planes themselves have not been usually associated with Covid-19 outbreaks because, although they're enclosed spaces, their excellent ventilation is designed to quickly filter airborne particles. A crowded immigration hall, however, would have no such protections. A 3 to 4 day incubation is more typical with the current strain. Did you go to the gym after your trip? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2795489 "...The mean incubation period of COVID-19 was 5.00 days (95% CI, 4.94-5.06 days) for cases caused by the Alpha variant, 4.50 days (95% CI, 1.83-7.17 days) for the Beta variant, 4.41 days (95% CI, 3.76-5.05 days) for the Delta variant, and 3.42 days (95% CI, 2.88-3.96 days) for the Omicron variant...". The 95% confidence interval means that 95% of people will incubate between 2.88 and 3.96 days between infection and developing symptoms.

Admittedly, I haven't read a study or academic treatise which discusses that particular issue. I briefly tried to look this up, and the studies seemed to be behind paywalls. If you have a reference to such a study, I'd be curious to read it.

Well, I'd certainly agree that going up to a stranger and scolding him for wearing a mask is rather rude. While it is true that the strain which killed millions, and put tens of millions in hospitals, is gone, it is also true that the mutated virus will probably be with us in some form or another, forever unless we somehow develop some technology which will allow a vaccine which prevents all forms of the virus, and enforce some sort of vaccine mandate. I doubt that will happen this century. A better reason to drop mask wearing involves our current scientific understanding. The Cochrane Review, which is probably the most objective and non-politically/financially motivated group of reviewers/biostatisticians, has reviewed the scientific studies which looked at masking in real-life situations. Their analysis suggests it's highly unlikely masking has much, if any benefit in terms of prevention: https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses "Medical or surgical masks Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned. N95/P2 respirators Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well-reported; discomfort was mentioned." While I wore masks at work as a physician until I retired at the start of 2021, subsequent studies have shown this precaution didn't do much, if anything. I wasn't wrong to have done so at the time, but our scientific understanding has changed. When the pandemic started, I also scrupulously wiped door handles, computer keyboards, telephones, etc., with industrial-grade disinfectant, I stopped the day after I read in the Journal of the American Medical Association the study (I believe it was in August of 2020) which showed that such measures were ineffective, as the virus wasn't transmitted that way. What studies have shown does work is improving ventilation in indoor spaces (or staying outdoors, of course). One of my next-door neighbors, a 76 year-old retired firefighter who is still rather compulsive regarding the virus, texted me the day after he had us over for a big party at his place, stating he tested himself the day after the party and came out positive for the virus. (I never asked him why he tested himself the day after, and not the day of the party) Neither he, nor his 75 year-old wife ever got symptoms. No way to know for sure of course, but one might wonder why you developed "brutal" symptoms, when most people no longer do. Have you been avoiding social gatherings--parties, theater performances, operas, etc., in efforts to avoid contact with the virus? The virus is highly prevalent, and I have seen statistics that maybe one person in ten carries the virus at any given time. Maybe constant exposure ensures high antibody levels as the virus mutates slowly, preventing more severe illness. Or maybe you have a weakened immune system, or an over-active one (such as asthma)? My partner and I go to Mexico and on cruise ships often, yet we don't come down with Norovirus illness often. In the 3.5 years we've been together, he got it once, on a cruise ship, and I haven't had it since a trip to Cabo San Lucas a good decade ago. I also didn't get sick when he got sick, although I was stuck in a cabin with him, so I was obviously exposed. More than likely, we get constant re-exposures, but with high antibody levels do not develop illness, so it's kind of like getting frequently re-immunized. (Norovirus infection provides probably at least a year's immunity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3739512/ "The duration of immunity to norovirus (NoV) gastroenteritis has been believed to be from 6 months to 2 years. However, several observations are inconsistent with this short period... We modeled a range of possible infection and immunity processes to capture the unknown aspects of the transmission process, and from these models, we estimate a mean duration of immunity ranging from ≈4 to 8 years...".) Unless you have a condition (or take a medication) which weakens your immune system, it may be wisest to go on with business as usual. After all, we've been living with coronaviruses probably at least for centuries, and probably millennia. The current strain is no more virulent than the ones we've been dealing with all of our lives. Certainly, from our current scientific understanding, it's highly unlikely that masking provides much, if any benefit.

Whenever I hear or read about Brazil nuts, I think of the "Charlie's Aunt" play, and the line "Where the nuts come from...".

Well, I don't see how unopened capsules of magnesium in your cupboard could do anything to help @donJ, or anyone else. 😉 But, seriously, vitamin D is rather unique in that it's really a hormone, not a vitamin, but most people in temperate climates simply don't make enough vitamin D to meet optimal requirements. Other vitamins, and minerals, which really are required in the diet, vary in how often people get recommended amounts. As discussed in a prior study I referenced higher, the RDA currently recommended in the US is far below one's needs if one doesn't have adequate skin-to-sunlight exposure (without sunblock). Many scientists in the field recommend that the RDA for Vitamin D be changed (if my recollection is correct, the recommendation dates to the late 1930s). Other than that, it depends on diet. The following article discusses which nutrients are most commonly lacking in the US diet, and magnesium is one of them: https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/micronutrient-inadequacies/overview#:~:text=Specifically%2C 94.3% of the US,and 38.9% for vitamin C. "...A US national survey, NHANES 2007-2010, which surveyed 16,444 individuals four years and older, reported a high prevalence of inadequacies for multiple micronutrients (see Table 1). Specifically, 94.3% of the US population do not meet the daily requirement for vitamin D, 88.5% for vitamin E, 52.2% for magnesium, 44.1% for calcium, 43.0% for vitamin A, and 38.9% for vitamin C...". Most multivitamin/multimineral supplements have only a fraction of dietary requirements for vitamin D, calcium, and magnesium, but do have adequate amounts of other nutrients. So I personally take MVI/MMN, plus vitamin D, and a calcium/magnesium supplement. Most other supplements are unhelpful for most people. Of course, my diet is probably pretty adequate in magnesium, so I focus mainly on the calcium rather than the magnesium. Too much magnesium can give you the runs.

I was listening to the radio news channel on my way to the grocery store the other day. They played a brief blurb from someone whom they described as a "public health expert" (not a public health official, but rather a faculty member of the University of Southern California School of Public Health) who said "The current Covid variant presents a challenge because most infections are asymptomatic." This sounds to me more like the press trying to fan flames hysteria when in reality the news that infections have markedly dropped in severity should be a cause for celebration. Aren't there more important diseases to try to control at this point? This reminds me of a conversation I had with an acquaintance decades ago who lamented the fact that the pediatric AIDS unit at UCLA was closing down--because there were almost no new pediatric cases anymore. Yes, the university did find him a far more productive use of his time. I'd say there needs to be a point when we say "OK. Medical science has done its job (and the virus mutated to a more sustainable form). Time to redirect public health resources to more pressing issues."

I realize that most Aussies probably have other sources of income, but trying to live on that has got to be insane. It certainly would be in California. Or are seniors entitled to other benefits such as subsidized housing and/or food?

I think he's the one holding the ball:

He didn't medal, but did compete in the last Olympics, Hungarian gymnast stud Krisztofer Mészáros.

Interesting. That makes me wonder if the original post was fabricated. That's quite something that a person can collect from a fund to which they didn't contribute a dime. In the US, one must work at least 40 quarters (10 years) to start collecting, and you pretty much get your maximum benefit after working 120 quarters (30 years). My husband won't collect social security on his own earnings (since he didn't work 40 quarters), but if I die before he does (most likely), he can continue to collect my social security (as long as I don't start collecting before my full retirement age of 67): https://www.ssa.gov/survivor/amount#:~:text=Payments start at 71.5% of,Over 80% at age 63. "Spouses and ex-spouses Payments start at 71.5% of your spouse’s benefit and increase the longer you wait to apply. For example, you might get: Over 75% at age 61. Over 80% at age 63. Over 90% at age 65. You can get up to 100% when you reach your “Full Retirement Age for Survivor benefits” (between ages 66–67)."